Just 20 countries produce 80% of the world’s oil, gas and coal. Since 2019, researchers have released regular reports analysing how these governments plan to continue drilling and mining for fossil fuels – and how those plans diverge from the global climate goal set out in the Paris Agreement, which aims to limit temperature rise to less than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. The 2025 Production Gap Report found that many of these countries still plan to produce far more fossil fuels by 2030 than is safe for the climate. Scientists Emily Ghosh, Derik Broekhoff, Bathandwa Vazi and Olivier Bois von Kursk were among the co-authors of the report, which found that Nigeria and South Africa – already among the world’s largest fossil fuel producers – plan to increase fossil fuel production despite their climate commitments.
How much fossil fuel are South Africa and Nigeria planning to produce?
The Nigerian government’s latest short-term fossil fuel production targets show that it wants to almost double oil output over the next five years, aiming to produce three million barrels per day by 2030.
Nigeria also aims to increase gas production by 75% from 2024 levels by 2030.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
These reported increases in production don’t align with Nigeria’s latest climate commitments. Nigeria made a global commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 29% by 2030 and 32% by 2035. It also aims to reach carbon neutrality by 2060 (where its greenhouse gas emissions are so low that they can all be absorbed by nature).
South Africa’s draft Gas Utilisation Master Plan shows the country intends to increase domestic gas production from offshore fields. It also wants to import liquefied natural gas.
South Africa’s plans for future coal and oil production are not available. However, in 2025, the country officially launched the state-owned South African National Petroleum Company. This will likely expand domestic fossil fuel production.
Read more: The world needs to consider how to manage the end of the fossil fuel era
Since 2020, South Africa’s government has given fossil fuel companies an average of R611 million (US$38 million) per year in tax breaks for oil and gas development and direct payments to coal power plants and coal mine projects.
South Africa has a climate change law that promises to cut greenhouse gas emissions and shut down coal power plants. But its state-owned electric utility, Eskom, did the opposite, instead extending the life of its oldest coal power plants by nearly 10 years, undermining these commitments. This suggests that South Africa will maintain its dependence on coal for at least another decade.
Read more: 600 million Africans don’t have electricity – the green energy transition must start with them
Since both countries want to continue relying heavily on fossil fuels for revenues and energy needs, this is going to lock them into costly and uncertain energy futures.
What’s the gap between the climate promises and investment in fossil fuels?
Nigeria’s latest climate pledge, known as its nationally determined contribution (NDC) to reducing global greenhouse gases, promises to reduce the country’s emissions by 29% before 2030.
Nigeria’s NDC notes that “fossil fuels generate significant government revenues and foreign exchange, while at the same time they contribute little to GDP and job creation”. The oil industry has also been in decline for over 10 years.
At the same time, Nigeria is trying to revive its onshore oil industry. African regional companies have purchased onshore assets from Shell and Equinor and plan to resume onshore operations.
This presents a gap between Nigeria’s promises to protect the climate and its actions.
Read more: Fossil fuels are still subsidised: G20 could push for the funds to be shifted to cleaner energy
South Africa’s coal production is largely used to make coal-fired electricity for local needs, but is also a major source of export revenue. South Africa says it’s extending the life of several coal fired electricity plants to make sure the country has enough electricity. The country’s latest national energy plan also proposes to add new fossil fuel based electricity in the next five years. Nearly 30% of all new energy capacity added by 2030 will be made up of coal and gas-fired power.
South Africa’s energy sector already generates the highest levels of greenhouse gas emissions in the country. Further investment in fossil fuels could jeopardise its commitment to reduce emissions by 27% by 2035.
If South Africa and Nigeria don’t move away from fossil fuels fast, what are the risks?
Shifting to cheaper renewable energy could improve energy security, lower costs, and reduce the risk of stranded assets (where investors are unable to recover the money they’ve spent on developing fossil fuel infrastructure). But continuing to invest in fossil fuels leaves both countries vulnerable to price shocks and oil price cycles, which are volatile.
Experts disagree about the future of global oil demand. Scenarios from the International Energy Agency and BP suggest that oil demand could peak before 2030 and then decline. In contrast, the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (a group of countries that export oil and coordinate their production) and the US Energy Information Administration forecast continued growth in oil demand through 2050.
Read more: G20 countries could produce enough renewable energy for the whole world – what needs to happen
If demand declines after 2030, Nigeria’s expensive fossil fuel infrastructure could become stranded assets. This will severely affect Nigerians, because decreasing export revenues may lead to a tightening of fiscal spending and cutting of services.
The other risk is environmental. Nigeria still has sizeable oil reserves. But a history of oil spills, gas flaring and sabotaged pipelines has led to ecological devastation in the Niger Delta. Most of its land and waterways are toxic and biologically degraded. Continuing to expand oil production in this region could severely worsen agriculture, fisheries and public health.
South Africa also risks stranded coal production assets as global buyers shift towards cleaner energy. If South Africa continues to use coal-fired power to run its factories, it could face Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms, or fees added by importing countries on emissions-intensive goods. These fees will make South African goods more expensive and less competitive globally.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Investing in new fossil fuel projects also undermines South Africa’s Just Transition framework (its plan to move away from coal).
What needs to happen next?
The 20 countries that produce most of the world’s coal, oil and gas have collectively failed to cut production or reduce global emissions.
To avoid the worst impacts of climate change, these countries will need to move away from fossil fuels much faster.
South Africa and Nigeria, in particular, need clear plans to close the gap between fossil fuel production and their promises to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Read more: South Africa’s shift from coal to renewables: how it’s going
These plans should also show how they will stop over-investing in new fossil fuel projects and help workers move into green jobs. They should make sure communities that depend on coal mines or other fossil fuel industries can find new ways to earn a living.
By taking these steps, countries can signal to fossil fuel industries and communities that the green energy transition will be managed in a well-planned and equitable manner.
Emily Ghosh, Senior Scientist and Equitable Transitions Program Director, Stockholm Environment Institute
Derik Broekhoff, Senior Scientist, Stockholm Environment Institute
